IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v497y2013i7447d10.1038_497031a.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. M. Whitty

    (London, and professor of international health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.)

  • Monty Jones

    (Monty Jones is executive director at the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa, Accra, Ghana.)

  • Alan Tollervey

    (Alan Tollervey is head of agriculture research at DFID.)

  • Tim Wheeler

    (Tim Wheeler is deputy chief scientific adviser at DFID, and professor of crop science at the University of Reading, UK.)

Abstract

Policy-makers in developing countries should not be swayed by the politicized arguments dominant in Europe, say Christopher J. M. Whitty and colleagues.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. M. Whitty & Monty Jones & Alan Tollervey & Tim Wheeler, 2013. "Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops," Nature, Nature, vol. 497(7447), pages 31-33, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:497:y:2013:i:7447:d:10.1038_497031a
    DOI: 10.1038/497031a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/497031a
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/497031a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klara Fischer & Camilla Eriksson, 2016. "Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Lucy Mallinson & Jean Russell & Duncan D. Cameron & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Horton & Margo E. Barker, 2018. "Why rational argument fails the genetic modification (GM) debate," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(5), pages 1145-1161, October.
    3. Klara Fischer & Elisabeth Ekener-Petersen & Lotta Rydhmer & Karin Edvardsson Björnberg, 2015. "Social Impacts of GM Crops in Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-23, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:497:y:2013:i:7447:d:10.1038_497031a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.